Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The filed information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as the details of Fig. 2 are not visibly clear. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “generating, by the application server, a natural language prompt for for obtaining guidance assisting the user in completing the one or more interface portions, wherein generating the
prompt includes inputting the user input and the extracted objects into a dual reference resolution
engine, the dual reference resolution engine”. The repeated sentence is considered as a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation " the extracted objections". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The limitation is interpreted as " the extracted objects".
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for being dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal (US 20210075748) in view of Singh (US 2023/0196374).
As per claim 1, *** teaches detecting, by an application server comprising at least one processor, a user device activating an electronic application, wherein the application server is configured to provide one or more applications to a plurality of user devices (Agarwal (2021/0075748), [0006], [0029], [0030], [0079], automatically initiating applications or upon user input);
capturing, by the application server, one or more interface portions of the one or more interfaces of the electronic application ([0071]- [0074], and Figs. 4A-4B show one or more interface portions of the electronic application);
extracting, by the application server, objects from the captured one or more interface portions, the objects including text displayed in the captured one or more interface portions and user input entered into at least one of the one or more interface portions ([0071]- [0081], extracting user text input along with the objects displayed on the one or more interface of the application);
determining, by the application server, a context associated with the user input and the one or more interface portions ([0068], wherein response component uses machine learning to determine responses to users’ requests/commands based on contextual information of the users input along with the objects displayed on the one or more interface of the application);
building, by the application server, a reference language model based on the determined context, the user input, and the extracted objects ([0069], training and building language models for processing natural language commands entered via chat interface 129 of client chat application);
generating, by the application server, a natural language prompt for obtaining guidance assisting the user in completing the one or more interface portions ([0065]- [0070], wherein response component 112 may be configured to handle responses to commands from user 150 within the chat interface. The responses are based on user input and the extracted objects);
generating, by the application server, guidance information by inputting the natural language prompt into a resolution language model, wherein the guidance information includes conversation guidance information and on-screen guidance information, wherein the conversation guidance information is configured for display in a first interface element including a chat functionality of the application and wherein the on-screen guidance information is configured for display in a second interface element separate from the chat functionality (Figs. 4A-4D and Figs. 5A-5E and corresponding description on [0071] – [0093], wherein conversation guidance information and on-screen guidance information is displayed on separate interface elements) ; and
electronically modifying, by the application server, the one or more interfaces of the electronic application, in real-time, to include the guidance information (Figs. 4A-4D and Figs. 5A-5E and corresponding description on [0071] – [0093], wherein the one or more interfaces of the electronic application changes and gets updated based on conversation and user commands on real tine).
Agarwal may not explicitly disclose inputting the user input and the extracted objects into a dual reference resolution engine. However, Agarwal teaches a system that can simultaneously understand and resolve two types of references in a user’s input (text and graphical objects). Therefore, a dual reference resolution engine is necessarily disclosed.
Agarwal may not explicitly disclose upon detecting activation of the electronic application by the user device, initiate monitoring, by the application server, of one or more characteristics of a use of the electronic application by a user of the user device, wherein the one or more characteristics include an amount of time spent on one or more interfaces of the electronic application. Singh in the same field of endeavor teaches this limitation (see paragraph [0121], wherein said, the server system 108 is configured to monitor various parameters such as time spent on financial application, battery status (i.e., mobile battery status score), and network connection status). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Singh with the system of Agarwal, in order to optimize the application software performance.
As per claim 2, Agarwal teaches wherein electronically modifying the one or more interfaces of the electronic application, in real-time, to include the guidance information includes: adding the conversation guidance information into a chat window corresponding to the chat functionality of the application; and adding the on-screen guidance information into a guide prompt window separate from the chat window (Figs. 4A-4D and Figs. 5A-5E and corresponding description on [0071] – [0093]).
As per claim 3, Agarwal teaches wherein the conversation guidance information is generated responsive to the user input ([0007], the conversation interface may be configured to receive user input comprising one or more user commands).
As per claim 4, Agarwal teaches wherein the one or more interface portions correspond to a first process of the application, and wherein the on-screen guidance information is generated by determining that a second process follows the first process of the application, wherein the on-screen guidance information provides user instructions for completing the second process (0068] –[0070])
As per claim 5, Agarwal teaches determining a first priority of the conversation guidance information and a second priority of the on-screen guidance information; and determining a placement of the conversation guidance information and the on-screen guidance information based on the determined first and second priorities ([0048], [0075], prioritizing responses based on users preferences from prior interactions)
As per claim 6, Agarwal teaches wherein electronically modifying the one or more interfaces of the electronic application further includes moving a location of at least one element of the one or more user interface portions from a first location to a second location (see chat interface of Figs. 4A-4D and Figs. 5A-5E).
As per claim 7, Agarwal may not explicitly disclose wherein the monitoring of one or more characteristics of the use of the electronic application by the user of the user device includes capturing the one or more characteristic at a specified frequency. Singh in the same field of endeavor teaches monitoring, by the application server, of one or more characteristics of a use of the electronic application by a user of the user device, wherein the one or more characteristics include an amount of time spent on one or more interfaces of the electronic application (paragraph [0121], wherein said, the server system 108 is configured to monitor various parameters such as time spent on financial application, battery status (i.e., mobile battery status score), and network connection status). Therefore, frequency sampling, i.e. the number of times a characteristic is measured per second (measured in Hertz, Hz) is necessarily performed by Singh in order to measure the time spent on a financial application. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Singh with the system of Agarwal, in order to improve analysis and provide better results.
As per claims 8-14, system claims 8-14 and method claims 1-7 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claims 8-14 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 1-7. Furthermore, Agarwal teaches one or more processors; and memory storing thereon instructions, as claimed ([0032]).
As per claims 15-20, Agarwal teaches a computer readable medium ([0041]). The remaining steps are rejected under the same rationale as applied to the method steps of rejected claims 1-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELALI SERROU whose telephone number is (571)272-7638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 Am - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ABDELALI . SERROU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/ABDELALI SERROU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights